User talk:KerAvelt

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you remove content

I noticed that you removed a paragraph from the Agriprocessors article and you seemed to be confused about the sourcing for the content. If you had actually looked at the source, you'd the book talks about the Agirprocessors astroturfing case. I know you're trying to help improve the article - next time you're confused about a source, it will help to actually read it, or look for another source that supports the content. Thanks a zilliion! --Mosmof (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You will soon find yourself under discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KerAvelt for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Mosmof (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks and continued edit warring immediately after a previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KerAvelt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

a. I did not violate the 3 revert rule. b. Why can I not point out that one who is seemingly delusional should not be considered part of a consensus? (John Nagle imagined that I deleted the Criminal box from the lede of Sholom Rubashkin, and proceeded to add a section on the talk page accusing me of such (just Check the History!!)

Decline reason:

I looked at the article's talk page, and I don't see the consensus that your desired changes should be made. Therefore, it wasn't appropriate for you to make them, and it wasn't appropriate for you to revert another user's edit returning to the version that currently has consensus on the talk page. It looks like you don't understand Wikipedia's rule against edit-warring, even after your previous block: when you know others disagree with you, there are lots of things you can do about it- see WP:DISPUTE for a list of them- but you don't repeatedly revert other users, even when you are sure they are wrong, because it causes disruption to the encyclopedia without leading to your desired version becoming a stable part of the article. It isn't only disruptive- it's ineffective, as you've seen. When your block expires, try explaining more clearly why your version is the one that best fits the sources and wikipedia's rules, and if you're right, others will agree with you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am under attack!

You guys are censoring any opinion that you do not agree with! And you have not responded to ANY of my proofs to my point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerAvelt (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

I have extended your block to 1 month for continuing to edit war on Sholom Rubashkin and repeated use of sockpuppets. You are welcome to appeal this block by following the instructions above. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three strikes and you're out. If you evade your block again, I will make it indefinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued block evasion with sockpuppet account User:Truthandjusticeforeveryone. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KerAvelt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What are you talking about?

Decline reason:

Your response is proof of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd be willing to bet that there's one more sockpuppet account, the one he created and used to discover that I'd protected the article. Care to tell us its name, User:KerAvelt? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KerAvelt for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]